On 1/Aug/18 19:43, Tarko Tikan wrote:
>
>
> We are an IPTV provider in europe and we definetly see share of linear
> TV (that we are delivering via intra-AS multicast today) decreasing YOY.
>
> OTT plays a big part but even more customers use our own on-demand
> services including network
On 1/Aug/18 00:15, Job Snijders wrote:
> However, as you noted; multicast within a single administrative domain
> (such as an access network distributing linear TV), or confined to
> purpose-built L3VPNs very much is a thing. On the public Internet multicast
> seems dead.
I'd concur.
Mark.
-routed multicast is dead on the public Internet
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 00:42, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Cute :). Well 8*bitrates, but nice optimisation to make stream count
> finite. Of course at cost of quality, as receiver needs up-speed of 8x
> at start. Interesting side-effect, quality
-
From: Saku Ytti
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:42 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Confirming source-routed multicast is dead on the public Internet
Hey,
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 00:36, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG
wrote:
> Hey, there's a better way.
>
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 00:42, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Cute :). Well 8*bitrates, but nice optimisation to make stream count
> finite. Of course at cost of quality, as receiver needs up-speed of 8x
> at start. Interesting side-effect, quality increases as movie
> progresses :)
I may have worded
Hey,
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 00:36, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG
wrote:
> Hey, there's a better way.
> Split the movie into segments:
> Segment 1: Minute 1.
> Segment 2: Minute 2.
> Segment 3: Minutes 3,4.
> Segment 4: Minutes 5-8.
> Segment 5: Minutes 9-16.
> etc.
> Then send each segment in a
Hey, there's a better way.
Split the movie into segments:
Segment 1: Minute 1.
Segment 2: Minute 2.
Segment 3: Minutes 3,4.
Segment 4: Minutes 5-8.
Segment 5: Minutes 9-16.
etc.
Then send each segment in a loop.
Each receiver receives every loop simultaneously.
Each segment may start receiving
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, John Levine wrote:
In article you
write:
Multicast is being used in various private IP networks. It seems to work
very well for satellite content distribution because multicast doesn't
require ack's. Enterprise networks also use multicast.
I would think it'd work fine on
In article you
write:
>Multicast is being used in various private IP networks. It seems to work
>very well for satellite content distribution because multicast doesn't
>require ack's. Enterprise networks also use multicast.
I would think it'd work fine on private networks, but since there's
Thanks to everyone that helped. Off-list I heard from network engineers
at several global Internet providers. They all confirmed that multicast
is no longer supported on their public Internet backbones, no matter what
their sales people might say. If someone opened a multicast trouble
ticket,
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 20:47, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'm sure both of your use cases are used extensively in internal
> network. I've worked for company who distributed broadcast TV on their
> MPLS IP backbone, two-plane network, red and blue, one copy for each
> tv channel on both planes and far-end
Hey Miles and Michael,
It is entirely fair to debate what the use-case would be, the
underlaying technical problem remains the same, if it becomes useful
(globally) we don't have the hardware to cater for it.
I'm sure both of your use cases are used extensively in internal
network. I've worked
hey,
What if... Bear with me for a moment here, we don't try to force VoD onto a
multicast setup? Multicast is used extensively by all major ISPs(if they
have the rights) to deliver IPTV.
We are an IPTV provider in europe and we definetly see share of linear
TV (that we are delivering via
On 8/1/18 12:24 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
Hey Mankamana,
other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would not
be viable for public internet ?
Imagine someone like youtube or netflix would like to use multicast,
instead of caches. They'd need to start new multicast
What if... Bear with me for a moment here, we don't try to force VoD onto a
multicast setup? Multicast is used extensively by all major ISPs(if they
have the rights) to deliver IPTV. One issue you brought up is people
unwillin to wait 1 or 5 mins for a show, well before the days of youtube
people
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:27 Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
> > satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
> > ends. From there it's converted back to RF video
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Aaron Gould wrote:
As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
ends. From there it's converted back to RF video and sent to
subscribers via cable or hfc plant
I'm aware
Hey Mankamana,
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would
> not be viable for public internet ?
Imagine someone like youtube or netflix would like to use multicast,
instead of caches. They'd need to start new multicast stream for every
content with small delay
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, John Kristoff wrote:
Second best might be the Internet2 community where a number of
institutions that have always had it might still have it turned on.
Though there has been only one post in all of 2018 on their list if
that tells you anything.
At my previous job (large
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:45:44 +
Adam Davenport wrote:
> I can confirm that GTT does indeed filter IP sourced from 224.0.0.0/4 at its
> edge.
Do you mean sent to 224/4 or literally anything with a source address
of 224/4?
For those that are or are considering filtering, you might also want
I can confirm that GTT does indeed filter IP sourced from 224.0.0.0/4 at its
edge.
On 7/31/2018 6:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
It is hard to prove a negative.
So let’s prove a positive. One of the largest (2nd largest?) transit networks
on the planet just affirmatively stated they filter
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 02:43:10 +
"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) via NANOG" wrote:
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast
> would not be viable for public internet ?
Two other significant contributing factors stem from complexity and
security issues.
Here are
Thus spake Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) via NANOG (nanog@nanog.org) on Wed, Aug
01, 2018 at 02:43:10AM +:
> other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would
> not be viable for public internet ?
Hi Mankamana,
You can find a reasonable overview here with respect
other than billing problem, is there any other reasons why multicast would not
be viable for public internet ?
Mankamana
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>>
>> Its tough to prove a negative. I'm extremely
Can your hfc customers do an igmp join?
No? Then it's probably not considered "public".
-Steve
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:21 AM Aaron Gould wrote:
> As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
> satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head
As you all have said, to confirm, I use ssm Mcast to distribute TV from
satellite down links in the headend, out to a few different remote head ends.
From there it's converted back to RF video and sent to subscribers via cable or
hfc plant
Aaron
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Job Snijders
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Its tough to prove a negative. I'm extremely confident the answer is yes,
> public internet multicast is not viable.
From a technical perspective, yeah, that’s right, but as you say, tough to
prove a negative. If you want to give them
It is hard to prove a negative.
So let’s prove a positive. One of the largest (2nd largest?) transit networks
on the planet just affirmatively stated they filter at their border. It is now
possible to state that multicast is not ubiquitous on the Internet.
If any other large transit network
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:28:31 +
Sean Donelan wrote:
> I did all the google searches, check all the usual CAIDA and ISP
> sites. IP Multicast is used on private enterprise networks, and some
> ISPs use it for some closed services.
More anecdotal evidence.
Probably the best place to know what
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 23:29, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Its tought to prove a negative. I'm extremely confident the answer is yes,
> public internet multicast is not viable. I did all the google searches,
> check all the usual CAIDA and ISP sites. IP Multicast is used on private
> enterprise
head-thunk
Source-Specific Multicast
Never post while extremely frustrated.
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Its tough to prove a negative. I'm extremely confident the answer is yes,
> public internet multicast is not viable.
From a technical perspective, yeah, that’s right, but as you say, tough to
prove a negative. If you want to give them a
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Its tought to prove a negative. I'm extremely confident the answer is yes,
> public internet multicast is not viable. I did all the google searches,
> check all the usual CAIDA and ISP sites. IP Multicast is used on private
> enterprise
33 matches
Mail list logo
